ArticleScientific reports2024
Computational evaluation and benchmark study of 342 crystallographic holo-structures of SARS-CoV-2 Mpro enzyme.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A new paradigm for drug discovery in the treatment of complex diseases: drug discovery and optimization.Chinese medicine · 2025Review
- Targeting SARS-CoV-2 main protease: a comprehensive approach using advanced virtual screening, molecular dynamics, and in vitro validation.Virology journal · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The coronavirus disease 19 pandemic, caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has led to a global health crisis with millions of confirmed cases and related deaths. The main protease (Mpro) of SARS-CoV-2 is crucial for viral replication and presents an attractive target for drug development. Despite the approval of some drugs, the search for effective treatments continues. In this study, we systematically evaluated 342 holo-crystal structures of Mpro to identify optimal conformations for structure-based virtual screening (SBVS). Our analysis revealed limited structural flexibility among the structures. Three docking programs, AutoDock Vina, rDock, and Glide were employed to assess the efficiency of virtual screening, revealing diverse performances across selected Mpro structures. We found that the structures 5RHE, 7DDC, and 7DPU (PDB Ids) consistently displayed the lowest EF, AUC, and BEDROCK scores. Furthermore, these structures demonstrated the worst pose prediction results in all docking programs. Two structural differences contribute to variations in docking performance: the absence of the S1 subsite in 7DDC and 7DPU, and the presence of a subpocket in the S2 subsite of 7DDC, 7DPU, and 5RHE. These findings underscore the importance of selecting appropriate Mpro conformations for SBVS, providing valuable insights for advancing drug discovery efforts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.